Re: Re: License of manual user notes

I would tend to consider the notes to the manual as documentation. Because the intent is to allow people to expand/clarify on a documentation item (function, etc.). If the comment is good and the function has a very sparse documentation, it usually gets added into the body of the manual (and the note removed). Bottomline, I would consider the notes to the manual as having the same license as the manual itself, i.e. GPL now (might change to OPL or similar IIRC). Any other opinions? --- Gabor Hojtsy <gabor@hojtsy.hu> wrote: > > I was wondering under what license were covered > the php code given > > in the comments in the php documentation. If i get > it right, the > > copyright holders for these remain the original > authors of the posts, > > so i guess the question is to be asked to every > author, but i just > > would like to be sure of it ;) To be clear, my > real question is > > "is there any problem including this code inside a > GPLed application" ? > > Hm, I am posting this message to the PHP > Documentation and the PHP > User Note management mailing lists, they may be able > to reply with > something reasonable. We have no statement on the > license of user > notes anywhere, nor do we thought about it... > > BTW subject is also modified to reflect the point > more closely. > > Goba [one webmaster@php.net] > > > > -- > PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > ===== --- Jesus M. Castagnetto <jmcastagnetto@php.net> __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com